How would you rank the greatest test teams of all-time?

[honestbharani]

When real alphas show up fake alphas.

"They were so aggressive before and now they were crying" - Sir Viv.

 

[Manee]

Not at all.

I think both bowling and batting would fall seriously short.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There are 3 contenders for no 1.
The bowling attacks neutralise each other, but the Invincibles have the best batting lineup.

 

[AndrewB]

Other quarterfinalists and semifinalists? Possible to post any link here on that?

Qualifying round-robin table:
Team Series Won Drawn Lost Points
Aus 2002 15 14 1 0 1208
Aus 1948 15 14 1 0 1008
Aus 1959 15 9 4 2 928
SA 2003 15 7 6 2 896
Eng 2010 15 5 8 2 896
Ind 2018 15 5 8 2 896
SA 1970 15 7 5 3 880
WI 1982 15 5 8 2 880
Eng 1958 15 5 7 3 864
WI 1965 15 5 5 5 832
Aus 1925 15 5 5 5 832
Aus 1902 15 1 3 11 752
Pak 1979 15 2 2 11 704
Aus 1976 15 1 3 11 696
NZ 1985 15 1 2 12 656
SA 1906 15 0 0 15 312

QF:
Australia (2002) beat West Indies (1982) 3-2 (winning in extra 6th tie-break Test)
Australia (1948) beat South Africa (1970) 3-2 (ditto)
England (2010) beat South Africa (2013) 3-2 (ditto)
India (2018) beat Australia (1959) 3-1

SF:
Australia (1948) beat England (2010) 2-1
Australia (2002) beat India (2018) 2-1

F:
Australia (2002) beat Australia (1948) 2-1

 

[Slifer]

Well NZ scored enough runs to beat them (sans Richards) in a 3-test series.

This is the side that beat them:

Wright
Edgar
Howarth
Parker
Webb
Coney
Lees
Hadlee
Cairns
Troup
Boock


No reason why Bradman's side couldn't beat them.

Likewise, Australia lost to England in 2005 and England had zero atg fast bowlers. No reason why they wouldn't lose to the 80s WI.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Likewise, Australia lost to England in 2005 and England had zero atg fast bowlers. No reason why they wouldn't lose to the 80s WI.

That attack was operating at an atg level at the time tbf. Shouldn't just go by names.

 

[Shady Slim]

That attack was operating at an atg level at the time tbf. Shouldn't just go by names.

goes without saying also that the fact australia lost in the actual series doesn't not make them the better team

if there's a series where one team has an 80% expected chance of winning the fact that the team with the 10% chance (other 10% is of a draw say) beats them doesn't mean team b is better than team a and the stats were wrong here, just that they likely played better in those five matches

 

[Slifer]

That attack was operating at an atg level at the time tbf. Shouldn't just go by names.

And the NZ team that beat wi in 1980 had some questionable assistance (RIP Goodall) so we shouldn't just go by that result either...My point? WI 'losing' to 80s NZ has no bearing on how they'd do vs the Invincible or anyone else....

 

[Xix2565]

I think both bowling and batting would fall seriously short.

Absolutely baseless nonsense. Just because there aren't any flat pitches anymore doesn't mean the Indian batting is bad, and the Indian bowling is way better than anything those sides faced.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And the NZ team that beat wi in 1980 had some questionable assistance (RIP Goodall) so we shouldn't just go by that result either...My point? WI 'losing' to 80s NZ has no bearing on how they'd do vs the Invincible or anyone else....

Acting like "questionable assistance" and "England winning 2005 Ashes" isn't the greatest love story of the generation

 

[JBMAC]

Bradmans Invincibles, a full tour of England (not just 5 Tests) and went undefeated.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Pretty hard to compare 1948 team to more recent ones. Cricket was a very different game back then

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Pretty hard to compare 1948 team to more recent ones. Cricket was a very different game back then

Yeah, but man for man that 1948 side is the strongest (although it is close between the top 3 sides).

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Composite side

Greenidge (80s WI)
Morris (40 Aus)
Bradman (40 Aus)
Richards (80 WI)
S Waugh (2000 Aus)
Miller (40 Aus)
Gilchrist (2000 Aus)
Lindwall (40 Aus)
Marshall (80 WI)
Warne (2000 Aus)
McGrath (2000 Aus)

4 Aus 1940s
4 Aus 2000s
3 WI

- very close, but Bradman's overall greatness and dominance gives them my vote.

 

[Slifer]

With all due respect, we're comparing a team that won one 5 test series 4-0 to two that dominated over prolonged periods. And as great as Bradman is, teams he played in outside that one particular series did lose tests (and series).

 

[Slifer]

Composite side

Greenidge (80s WI)
Morris (40 Aus)
Bradman (40 Aus)
Richards (80 WI)
S Waugh (2000 Aus)
Miller (40 Aus)
Gilchrist (2000 Aus)
Lindwall (40 Aus)
Marshall (80 WI)
Warne (2000 Aus)
McGrath (2000 Aus)

4 Aus 1940s
4 Aus 2000s
3 WI

- very close, but Bradman's overall greatness and dominance gives them my vote.

Yeah but you could very easily replace McGrath and Lindwall with Garner and Holding and there wouldnt be any major discernible decrease in the attacks strength. Of course the same could be said of Hayden for Greenidge etc so there's that. Man for man imo, is not a good way to separate the teams.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Which team has the record for most Test wins in a row?

that should settle it

 

[Fuller Pilch]

With all due respect, we're comparing a team that won one 5 test series 4-0 to two that dominated over prolonged periods. And as great as Bradman is, teams he played in outside that one particular series did lose tests (and series).

From the end of WW2 to the end of the 40s, Australia played 21 tests for 16 wins and 0 losses.

45/46 - absolutely destroyed NZ in a one-off test despite Cowie taking lots of wickets (and didn't play them in another test for almost 30 years)
46/47 - won 5 match Ashes in Australia 3-0
47/48 - won 5 match series v India in Aus 4-0
48 - won 5 match Ashes in England 4-0 (strong English team on paper)
49 (post Bradman) - won 5 match series in South Africa 4-0

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah but you could very easily replace McGrath and Lindwall with Garner and Holding and there wouldnt be any major discernible decrease in the attacks strength. Of course the same could be said of Hayden for Greenidge etc so there's that. Man for man imo, is not a good way to separate the teams.

Fair enough

 

[Slifer]

From the end of WW2 to the end of the 40s, Australia played 21 tests for 16 wins and 0 losses.

45/46 - absolutely destroyed NZ in a one-off test despite Cowie taking lots of wickets (and didn't play them in a another test for almost 30 years)
46/47 - won 5 match Ashes in Australia 3-0
47/48 - won 5 match series v India in Aus 4-0
48 - won 5 match Ashes in England 4-0 (strong English team on paper)
49 (post Bradman) - won 5 match series in South Africa 4-0

Fair enough...??